Is this really an ATG Top 10 resume....

A lightweight dominats his division steps up and beats a top three WW in Leonard then moves to MW and gives a top three MW in Hagler his toughest fight whilst champon.

I do not think Duran is over rated.

 

Thing is, I have seen him talking about Roy Jones and if I remember right he said he is a Top10 atg ...

 

i did as well to be honest so i can't fault him for that :!:

 

I just think it´s funny saying Jones is a Top10 atg while saying Duran´s resume isn´t good enough to be up there. In fact, I think this is complete madness.

 

duran's resume (faults and all) completely shits on jones'

 

I have Whitaker at # 20.

The main differences between them: Duran's resume is a little better and he has a bit of a gap on him when it comes to longevity.

As for Benny, I have him ranked above Duran, like yourself. He's # 4 for me.

What distinguishes them? I think Benny's resume is better.

With that said though, I think Duran's resume is actually a little underrated, or should I say, some of his wins are underrated.

For example, I don't consider Floyd's wins against an old Molsey and DLH as better wins than say Duran's B class wins against Edwin Viruet and Emiliano Villa.

 

...I kind of have to agree there. Wait...I thought this thread was a wind up. Was I off? Because if it isn't then I change my take back to my original comment about idiocy.

 

Well, that would depend on what you thought of the skillsets and h2h abilities of the other fighters on the list.

If you included skillsets and h2h ability I don't see much wrong with 14 spots between them. I could live with about 30 to tell you the truth. I do think it's that subjective...

You mean a point where I say 'that era was inferior and the sport has since evolved'?

I try not to. Obviously the game has changed and evolved and fighters have different strengths now from what they did at the beginning of the last century, but I try not to penalise old timers for it.

I prefer to keep h2h and skills criteria off my p4p list to take that facet out of it, but it still has some say in my resume criterion, because how can a resume be thought to be good if the fighters that one beat aren't considered to be good?

When grading old timers though, it takes a lot of imagination and speculation. I mean, I can hardly say to have seen enough of the likes of Joe Dundee, Lew Tendler, Jack Britton, Rocky Kansas, Willie Ritchie etc. to make a claim as to their worth on Benny Leonard's resume. And yet I do.

It's a bias we have to make in a way, if we are really talking about making an 'all time' list.

 

i have ask mcgrain, how much weight you give to losses on a record? obviously the context matters and in langford's case, he was typically outweighed by huge amounts. but in general: does a resume full of spectacular wins cancel out losses that may be scattered throughout to lesser fighters?

 

I think the idea of assessing resume by just listing scalps taken is seriously flawed.

I think the things to ask are: 1) did the boxer fight the best around in their time (and, if not, why)/; 2) did the boxer deal with opponents the way one would expect a boxer of a certain quality in this case, top-10 AT p4p) to treat them,